On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 8:43 PM, Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Benjamin Peterson <benja...@python.org> writes: > > Why would having PyPy as the reference implementation have made this > design > > decisions turn out better? > > A fair amount of Python 2's design was influenced by what was convenient > or efficient to implement in CPython. > It's dangerous for a language to be defined by a single implementation for too long. Also, a language defined by an implementation in a flexible language is more likely to escape some problems than a language defined by an implementation in a rigid language.
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
